Satyapal and 5 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

APPLICATION U/S 528 BNSS No. - 1427 of 2025

¶3

Satyapal And 5 Others

¶4

.....Applicant(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. Of Home Lko. And Another .....Opposite Party(s) Counsel for Applicant(s) : Dheerendra Kumar Singh, Indra Jeet Singh, Rajnish Maurya Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.

¶7

Court No. - 29

¶8

HON'BLE MANOJ BAJAJ, J.

¶9

Applicants-accused have approached this Court through this application under Section 528 B.N.S.S for quashing of the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur Kheri, in Miscellaneous Case No. 461 of 2025, whereby the application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. moved by the opposite party no.2 has been allowed.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicants has argued that in respect of homicidal death of Bhagirath @ Bhagrashan F.I.R dated 27.03.2025 bearing Case Crime No. 0095 of 2025 already stood registered, therefore, the order dated 24.06.2025 passed by Chief Judicial Magistrate, Lakhimpur-Kheri, directing registration of an F.I.R for the same incident is not sustainable. He further submits that the impugned order dated 24.06.2025 has been passed upon an application under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S, moved by Lakhi Devi– opposite party no.2 (mother of the applicant no.1). According to learned counsel, the applicants cannot be prosecuted by way of two cases for commission of alleged one offence, therefore, the order dated 24.06.2025 deserves to be set aside.

¶11

During the course of hearing, it is fairly stated by the learned counsel that the dead body of Bhagirath @ Bhagrashan was found on 13 February, 2025, and immediately the widow of the deceased gave an application

¶12

NA528 No. 1427 of 2025

¶13

2

¶14

under Section 173(4) B.N.S.S. before the Magistrate for registration of case and investigation against applicant no.1- Satyapal and his wifeAnita Devi and others.

¶15

After hearing the learned counsel for the applicants and considering his submissions, this Court finds that the F.I.R dated 27.03.2025 only relates to the information of missing of Bhagirath @ Bhagrashan and the same was registered on the basis of a complaint by Vijay Pal son of Bhagirath @ Bhagrashan. Further, according to learned counsel for the applicants, the dead body of the deceased was found on 13.02.2025 whereas the information regarding missing of Bhagirath @ Bhagrashan by Vijay Pal was given to police on 27.03.2025 whereupon F.I.R bearing Case Crime No. 95 of 2025 was registered. Learned counsel has feigned ignorance about the status of investigation in the said F.I.R as well as the implementation of the impugned order dated 24.06.2025.

¶16

Through the order dated 24.06.2025 the Magistrate has only sent the complaint by opposite party no.2 to the police for registration of case and investigation, and while doing so the Magistrate has not examined the merits. Since, the alleged homicidal death of husband of opposite party no.2 is under investigation, therefore, this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the impugned order dated 24.06.2025.

¶17

Thus, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is clear that the alleged unnatural death of Bhagirath @ Bhagrashan is under investigation by police, and the argument by the learned counsel that for one offence, there cannot be two proceedings against the accused is apparently misconceived.

¶18

Resultantly, without meaning any expression of opinion on the merits of the case, the application is hereby dismissed.

¶19

(Manoj Bajaj,J.)

¶20

October 7, 2025 Preeti

¶21

Digitally signed by :- PREETI GAUTAM High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satyapal and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satyapal and 5 Others v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Pankaj Chauhan vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Deptt. of Home Lko. and Another

Brij Bihari Mishra and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. of Home U.P. Lko. and Another

Suresh @ Suresh Kumar vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home and Another

Mohammad Asad Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief/ Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Rakesh Kumar and 3 Others Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another

Pankaj Alias Pankaj Yadav Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.